Media for Southern Pacific Company v. GileoAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - May 01, 1956 (Part 1) in Southern Pacific Company v. Gileo
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - May 01, 1956 (Part 2) in Southern Pacific Company v. Gileo
Nathaniel S. Colley:
I -- I don't think this Court will do that.
As to Aranda, let me say that the brief of the petitioners is not full in that regard either as to the statement of the facts.
Very briefly, let me tell you what Aranda case is all about.
Mr. Aranda worked in the wheel foundry but his wheel foundry, the wheel foundry which he worked is nothing but a repair shop.
Now, I'll tell you why.
There is no means known to the industry to repair a worn out freight train wheel except to take it and remold it into another wheel but it's the same metal, it's the same wheel, they just have to recast it.
What Aranda did was simply one chain in the whole repair process.
If a wheel went bad in El Paso, Texas, somebody had to take the wheel off the train, put it on the flat car and ship it to Sacramento to be repaired.
Now, suppose a man taking the wheel off had been injured, would he be covered by the Act?
Suppose a man bringing it to Sacramento from El Paso gets hurt on the flat car, would he be covered by the Act?
Certainly, he would.
What about the man lifting it at the wheel foundry, and remember that the wheel foundry is located within the shops of the Southern Pacific Company and the flat car brings the wheel to the wheel foundry lifted by a crane from the flat car over into the wheel foundry.
Now, the man lifting it from the flat car to the wheel foundry, he is certainly would be covered by the Act.
Then when it's molded to go back out to Portland, what about the man putting it back on the flat car, he certainly would be covered by the Act.
Children versus Thompson was exactly that.
It wasn't a wheel foundry but he was lifting wheels from a storehouse into a flat car.
Then if this is one continuos chain, why pick out Rocky Aranda and say to him, "Because you were the man actually repairing a wheel so it could go back into interstate commerce from when it had just come, we're going to limit you and not include you in the coverage of the Act."
Actually, in Aranda's duties, he had to help not only mold the wheel but help get the wheels ready to be put back on the flat car to go back out.
It is not true that these wheels where all put in storage as it indicated in the brief of petitioner.
The truth is and the record shows that these wheels when molded, part of them was sent directly from the wheel foundry to Portland, Oregon where they were fix onto axles and either sent to be used on running repairs or sent to use on new construction or whatever the case might be.
In other words, they were not all stored.
It wouldn't make any difference whether they were stored or not as I understand the law, but it is not true that they were all stored.
Actually, the repair -- the work of Aranda was repair of wheels in a wheel foundry by the only method or repair known to the industry.
And for that reason, Aranda should be covered by the Federal Employer Liability Act like all the rest of the employees.
And in closing, let me say that if you asked me how far the Act should go, my only answer is, send it and take it as far as Senator Austin said take it and send it because Senator Austin put the words in the statute and he said he was putting them there using words of art that this Court had defined and understood and how will Congress ever know how to enact the legislation with specific meaning, if it can't look to this Court to the definitions already given and write those definitions into the statue and expect this Court to follow you.